When I was in my 20’s, I was called a “God damned atheist” by a man who was sorely disappointed that I didn’t march off to the Catholic Church with his family. I was dating his daughter at the time, and I had been welcomed to visit her family home for that weekend. Everything was going well until Sunday morning. After I declined his invitation to go to Mass, the livid father announced that I was no longer welcome in that house. It was as if I had tried to set the house on fire. Worse yet, my then-girlfriend’s father was a college philosophy teacher—I had assumed that professors would be more tolerant than that. I was shocked at his intolerance and I abided by his request.
I could give many other stories documenting that I have experienced discrimination, including discrimination that took the form of wholesale emotional rejection by adults when I was young and vulnerable. My stories would not be unique. Here is an especially disturbing episode involving another young man.
In many parts of America, those who don’t believe in God are stigmatized by members of their own communities. That is the reason for the “Out” campaign.
As more and more people join the OUT Campaign, fewer and fewer people will feel intimidated by religion. We can help others understand that atheists come in all shapes, sizes, colours and personalities. We are labourers and professionals. We are mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, sisters, brothers and grandparents. We are human (we are primates) and we are good friends and good citizens. We are good people who have no need to cling to the supernatural.
It is time to let our voices be heard regarding the intrusion of religion in our schools and politics. Atheists along with millions of others are tired of being bullied by those who would force their own religious agenda down the throats of our children and our respective governments. We need to KEEP OUT the supernatural from our moral principles and public policies.
If you want to make your rejection of bureaucratic religion visible, you can buy t-shirts or bumper stickers.
I must admit, though, that I am ambivalent about this campaign. On the one hand, it is shameful that so many people ostracize those of us who don’t claim allegiance to a religion, as though we are per se immoral. Statistics don’t bear out that non-believers are any less willing to help those in need than believers. As I’ve argued before, non-religious altruism is a higher form of morality. It is a purer form of morality to help others because it is the right thing to do, rather than because “God” ordered one to do it under threat of burning in hell. Yet, somehow, the alleged immorality of non-believers is taken as a given by many Americans.
For this reason that non-believers are unfairly criticized and politically ostracized, the “Out” campaign is critically important and I do hope it succeeds in its goals. As Richard Dawkins writes, there are huge numbers of non-believers out there–if more of them would stand up and be counted, it would be harder to discriminate against all of us.
On the other hand, I am not comfortable with the term “atheist” being at the vanguard of the movement. “Atheist” comes loaded with connotations of immorality and stridency. “Atheist” is also a term that suggests, to many people, that one does not have a poetically spiritual side, that one does not appreciate walks in the forest, meditation, or the mutually-healing power of doing good works for others. The problem is that the forces of intolerance have successfully commandeered the word “atheist.”
Personally, I find that it makes a huge difference whether I call myself an “atheist” or, rather, whether I characterize myself as someone who doesn’t “believe in God” or “follow a religion.” When I’ve described myself in a way that doesn’t use the term “atheist,” I’ve found that the people with whom I am conversing are much less threatened and much more willing to engage in meaningful dialogue.
An even better approach, in my experience, is to announce that I reject “bureaucratic religion.” I find that this approach is quite well accepted by most of those who claim to belong to religions. In my experience, most believers are troubled (some more than others) that religions try to get their members to assert factually vacuous claims in order to inspire or scare the members into conforming to programs that are essentially political. It is amazing to me how many people, including church-goers, are at least somewhat suspicious of organized religions for this reason (and other reasons).
What is the alternative to belonging to a religion? How about making the search for ultimate truth a private decision for each person? What if each of us undertook his or her search for “God” or “Meaning” in a manifestly unregimented way? Most people are quite open to this idea, at least in principle. It’s an idea that meshes well with freedom of expression. This approach would be a lot more work for the many who belong to the most regimented religions. Many such people consider the search for meaning accomplished by engaging in rote oxymoronic chatter once per week. I’m not trying to be cruel when I write this criticism–addressing one’s God with a rote prayer makes no more sense to me that if you regularly addressed your parents, children or friends with rote passages written hundreds of years ago instead of talking with them. Reading things at each other strikes me as an odd way to try to communicate.
I’m aware that the negative connotations could change over time if this “Out” campaign is successful, but I’m afraid that shoving “atheist” in people’s faces might kick up the temperature without generating productive dialogue.
I’m for coming “out,” of course. All of us should come “out” to our well-founded beliefs. I just want to make sure that when non-believers do it, it is done in a way that achieves the stated goals of the campaign: to put a halt to the discrimination and intimidation.
Fundamentalist Atheism doesn't suit my needs. I readily come out as an atheist, but not under Dawkins' divisive banner. Belittling those of faith is not going to win anyone over to the rationalist/naturalist camp.
But it is sad to see how many of the responders have no idea where the ideas behind their own faith comes from. Contrary to Mary's claim, Jews, Christians, and Muslims do not believe in the same God. These 3 faiths (comprising over 16% of the world population) all use the anthology known as the Old Testament as part of the basis of their faith, but the expectations of God in each faith are different. The behavior of their final authority is different. The ultimate destination based on particular behaviors is different. Baby Jesus was visited by 3 Magi (who called God Mithra), not 3 rabbis of Jehovah. Christianity is Zoroastrianism with some names changed and the prophet elevated to a deity.
Many responders here and in the Beware False Explanations post seem to feel that endless circular reasoning from one incontestable source will convert us reasoners to believers. I find that reading many sources (many voices, faiths, cultures) and comparing and testing their claims empirically and/or statistically (i.e: Science) to be much more satisfying than just willing to believe in one book from one culture at one time.
I firmly believe there are no Gods: Atheist.
I cannot prove there are no Gods: Agnostic.
It doesn't matter if there are any Gods: Ignostic.
I'm all three; no contradiction.
Peter Solomon (incoherently) describes characteristics of a world in which no supernatural intercession were necessary, but somehow thinks this proves said meddling with natural processes.
Had enough of the bigoted, arrogant Christian mentality? Try Judaism. I'm serious. I grew up in a Catholic family and I can honestly state with great authority that Catholicism, the first Christian religion, is the greatest threat to religious freedom in the world, second only to Islam. Catholics were the first to persecute us Jews. They were the ones who invented the blood libel. Muslims adopted it later on and we Jews haven't had a moments peace since.
But in Judaism you learn how much garbage there really is in the Christian Bible (New Testament) and how much it has been rewritten and intentionally misinterpreted over the centuries. They even had to rewrite OUR book (Old Testament) to suit their arrogance. You know those 300 Old Testament prophecies about Jesus? They aren't about Jesus. And if you read the JPS version of the Old Testament, which is translated for the original Hebrew text, you get the real story.
Judaism comes in four different flavors. There are the Orthodox Jews, the ones who are about as fundamentalist as most Bible Belt Christians. Then there are the Conservative Jews, who are probably not that much different from down-to-Earth Christians. At least they don't "suffer the little children" literally, if you get my drift. Then there are the Reform Jews, a much more liberal crowd. You'll find a much more modernist, open-minded bunch. And then, there are the Reconstruction Jews. These folks are closer to Unitarian Universalist than anything, even Judaism. Their belief is that G-d is not so much a supreme being, but rather all the physical forces in the universe, forces that act up when, well, when WE act up-very similar to the good karma-bad karma concept in Buddhism.
It's up to you to decide, and no one has a right to judge you if you choose to believe or not. Judaism has been around a long time and no one has squished us yet. Whatever you decide on, I wish you the best. Shalom!
For the owner and responders of this trite and disposable piece of non-sense…
I'm not going to tell you that you should "be ashamed, and find God", and I'm not going to tell you that you should feel differently about your own personal experiences. But I will warn you that any attempt to be foolish and personally stand with conviction against people of ANY religion, will be the direct downfall of your own personal selfs. You may not believe in a god, but surely you can't believe in your own murdering, self-absorbed governments. America is the only enemy you have…
Just remember it's not Christianity that makes abortions, over taxes you at the gas pump, creates the poor, allows child-molesters to have their own web-site's, makes black people the minority, runs secret societies, lies, steals, cheats and murders indiscriminately….
NO, THAT'S THE AMERICAN WAY…
It seems that many of the replies miss the point. He wasn't telling the story of the intolerant name caller to explain why he was not a believer, but to illustrate that the term atheist has a very large negative meaning to many people.
No, the term atheist does not mean one is certain there is no god. It merely means that one does not believe in a god. To be a theist one merely has to believe in a god, not be certain of it.
Sure there are some "bad apple" Christians, but there are also some vinegar barrel churchs. One cannot get a good apple out of a vinegar barrel.
One does not explain a finite complexity by positing an infinite complexity. That is not science, merely intuition.
"Atheists are just as one-way as any believer can be."
I disagree. As an atheist, I am free to ponder new evidence, and in fact, if I were to see a figure of the virgin mary on my "pop-tart", and it bled anything other than strawberry goo, I would certainly devote my life to the church. So it really isn't as one way as you say, since you would not switch to atheism (would you?), even if I showed you evidence that YOUR religion is flawed.
To most people, …
Religion = Philosophy which includes a belief in the existence of proof of the existence of gods.
Philosophy = Set of concepts and principles.
Concept = Mental representation/idea of a person or an object.
Examples of People/Objects: A woman named Jane, a ball, and a man named Dick.
Principle = Mental representation/idea of a causal relationship between/among persons and/or objects.
Causal Relationship = People/Objects/Events who/which are causes cause as effects (A) changes in pre-existing people/objects/events or (B) new people/objects/events.
Example of a Causal Relationship: Jane throws the ball to Dick; Jane is the cause of the ball traveling through space and time to Dick.
Theist = Person whose philosophy includes a belief in the existence of proof of the existence of gods.
Atheist = Person whose philosophy includes a belief in the existence of proof of the non-existence of gods.
Agnostic = Person whose philosophy includes a disbelief in the existence of proof of the existence of gods and a disbelief in the existence of proof of the non-existence of gods.
If you do not believe in the existence of proof of the existence of gods or in the existence of proof of the non-existence of gods, then you are an agnostic.
To most people, "agnostic" is not as problematic a term as "atheist."
too much ignorance comes from wrong teachings, too many rebellious feelings and thoughts come from the inexperienced one. the philosophers are those who can not accept the will of god, but make up their own, out of man comes sinful teachings of pain, suffering, destruction, egotism and calamity..choose your own religious teachings, live without any if you choose, but there is a god and he can be found if you search for him, but do not let others discourage you..every house has a maker, or could a house be built by itself with all its parts, that's how all around you came to be, he teaches everyone who listens how to have a meaningful life and how to co-exist with others in the world..what do you say when your in serious trouble, or in pain? but is it your rightful choice not to believe in the only true god there is whose only desire is for you to live a long happy life.
Actually I consider myself an agnostic. Philosophically, I am an existentialist. This is because I was trained in the science of logic in my early teens. This often places me in a position that is perceived as wrong by atheists and theists alike. However when I explain my beliefs, most atheists will listen open-mindedly, while the theists will try their best to convince me that there is a God (or Gods in a few cases).
From a logical point of view, absolute binary opposites do not exist. The logical opposite of "good" is "not good" and the logical opposite of "bad" is "not bad". The only situation where binary opposites exist is in Boolean algebra. So, although, I have no evidence to compel me to believe in god, logically the lack of such evidence is not evidence supporting the non-existence of god. Even though I don't believe in god, I cannot logically prove the non-existence of god, since by definition, non-existence is non-provable. I can honestly say that I don't know, since knowledge implies evidence.
As an existentialist, I acknowlege that every thing I do has an effect on myself, my social environment, and my physical environment. While many find comfort in the concept of predestination, I find the concept of predestination both depressing and opressive. I acknowledge there are events that are not influenced by my choices, things that I must learn to accept. So I adapt as needed.
There are intolerant atheists as well as intolerant theists. Thse that are offended by the phrase "under God" in the pledge of allegience are intolerant of the theists, who are in majority in the US. True agnostics tend to be much more tolerant of others right to believe as they wish. This tolerance is often viewed as non-comitment by theists and atheists among us.
Once a coworker invited me to her church. I politely declined, telling her that I was not a believer. In a very sincerely caring tone of voice she informed me that I was going straight to hell when I die, and that she would pray for me to change. At the time, it sort of creeped me out. I realized that her intentions were out of concern for a fellow human, so I did not hold that against her.
Hmm. Let's see. By the dictionary, "atheist" is one who does not believe in the existence of a supreme being, "agnostic" neither believes no disbelieves, and "deist" believes a supreme being created the universe but does not influence it. Whichever one fits me varies from day to day. I do believe in science, and science says matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and by that token, life cannot begin with birth (or even conception) nor can it end with death. (Guess that makes me one of Thomas Hogue's infinitists.
To eyescu:
"Women are dead set on killing unborn babies because it is their right and they dont want to be told that it is the wrong thing to do when all they have to do is abstain ."
I have never had sex. I do not wish to have sex. I have never consumed alcohol to a level where I am not 100% aware of what I'm doing. I live in fear that my rights will be taken away one by one on the grounds that something "might" harm a fetus I "might" be carrying. Worse yet, I fear the anti-abortionists will win and later I could be impregnated against my will and face a murder charge for dropping anything less than a perfectly healthy baby nine months later. It's enough to make me want to "pre-emptively abort" every child I might ever have with a total hysterectomy. Especially with the discovery of epi-genes and how they can be influenced with diet….
And back to the subject of "words and their meanings"
Did you know that the first monotheists were the EGYPTIANS? "Amen" is actually a variant pronunciation of "Amun," the "Unseen One" of ancient Egyptian beliefs. The "neteru," (often translated as "gods") are more like aspects of Amun, analagous to the "saints" of Catholisism.
Wow. Well I read a lot of those responses with a mixture of sadness and anger, yet I am not surprised at a lot of the statements that were made. I am a 23-year old Christian. I was raised 'in the church' like so many people refer to it, but it was never brainwashing. 'Brainwashing' denotes a consistent, systematic and FORCIBLE pressure to get one to believe in a particular system of beliefs. I wish folks would look words up before they used them. In the first instance, I was raised a Pentcostal; I was raised to believe in Christ crucified, died and raised again on the third day to save us from our sins so that we could be reconciled to the Father. You know what though? I did my own thing. For a number of years, I deliberately chose not to follow and live by the beliefs I was taught and I basically did my own thing.
The beliefs I was taught were never forced down my throat. I was given a choice. I was told "Hey you can believe this or not." Deep down, I believed, because I have had more than a few personal experiences with God and His goodness. I can't PROVE with empirical evidence that God exists. I can't say to any non-believer "Well look, so and so proves that God exists and as such, you should follow Him." Any Bible-believing Christian knows what I mean. You have all had your experiences, whether it was divine provision, protection or revelation, we are part of an exclusive group.
A REAL Christian will not shove his/her beliefs down another's throat. I have spoken to people about the Lord and His goodness to me and nearly all of them balked at the idea of 'giving their life' to God. Naturally, human beings are rebellious and do not like to submit to authority. Imagine being told that you have to submit to divine authority, basically being told you have to submit yourself to an authority figure who you can't see or touch or feel in a traditional sense? Well I can just hear the confused and belligerent masses.
I wish I could remember all the things I read earlier because there were some doozies. I agree that Erich had a really crappy experience when he was younger. I agree that that shouldn't have happened, but I think he should seriously stop whining about it and open his eyes. How many times did this happen in is life? I agree that he is letting this experience close his mind. Yes, people are hypocritical by nature. This all hails back to our sinful nature, but a REAL, TRUE Christian would never kick someone out of his house because he didn't believe in God or a Divine Creator/Designer. I also know that a lot of people hide behind 'religion.' Religion IS organised, but Christianity is NOT a religion. It is a lifestyle that we live.
I take exception to Mark's comment: "There is, in my mind, little difference between the “Christian fundamentalist” and the groups we label as terrorists. Left unchecked any fundamentalist ideology will ultimately resorts to some sort of force to further it’s agenda.
That is such a ridiculous claim. How can you compare extremist fundamentalists (remember, these people brutally behead others with sharp knives while they are still alive) to the Christian fundamentalist? Mark. do you even KNOW what a Cristian fundamentalist is? There is no ground for your claim whatsoever and the comparison is so radical that it borders on the outrageous. Usually this kind of comment would outrage me, but I realise that as a free-thinking person, you are subject to your own beliefs, and furthermore, the Bible tells us that in the last days, there would be intense opposition to the Christian way of life. So an attack like that doesn't surprise me.
As for claiming that it is arrogant to assert that a God exists (here's looking at you MS), it is even more arrogant for one to assert that there ISN'T one, because that means asserting that every man is in charge of his own destiny. A man can try to order his own life and he will be successful to a point, but the Bible says that a man's steps are ordered of the Lord (Psalms 37:23-26) AND I QUOTE
23 The steps of a good man are ordered by the LORD,
And He delights in his way.
24 Though he fall, he shall not be utterly cast down;
For the LORD upholds him with His hand.
I know someone will blast me for this but who cares? Yes, I am a fundamentalist, and I believe in the Bible. Obviously as a young person, I don't know everything, and there will be (as there have been) times when I couldn't explain something in the Bible to a non-believer. This always ends up looking like I had been one-upped, but it doesn't matter to me. I believe what I believe because it works for me. No one can feel the peace I have felt, the contentment and satisfaction that comes from trying to develop a closer relationship with God. I never tried to force anyone to believe what I do and I never will. Think about THIS: I believe that it takes more of an open mind to believe that a SUPERNATURAL being created everything. That concept challenges one to kind of think outside the box and acknowledge that a higher force than us is in charge, and that our entire existence isn't or wasn't come cosmic accident.
This is why I hate discussing 'religion,' as it is commonly called. I think that the issue is Man's refusal to acknowledge that his life is not his own and that it was bought with a price, and that all actions have consequences, whether dire or small. The thing with people is that they want to do their own thing (this hails back to my 'submitting to Divine Authority' rant a paragraph or so back) and expect that no consequences will come of it regardless of how they choose to love their life. Shame on those who would present the real followers of Christ in a bad and hypocritical light. And yes, sometimes those VERY people can be found lifting hands in church and clapping and singing along with the rest of us trying to live our lives the way God instructed us. The REAL disciples don't let that kind of foolishness bog us down and hold us back from our walk with God.
Jesus is the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man goes to the Father but by Him. Why try to jump over the wall, when the Door is being opened to you? God bless you all.
I was terminated by Tri-Met (Portland, OR public transportation) because I am a "Godless hippy". Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industries did not help because they "dont have the time or money to investigate…". Who will help me? The laywers I contacted cost to much, the Union Rep had to get to church, who will help me? My grandma told a story of Nazi Germany: First they came for the jews and i ignored them, because it wasnt me. Then they came for the Catholics, and i ignored them, because it wasnt me. Then they came for the ….. Then they came for me, and when I called out for help, there was no one left to hear.
Can anyone hear me?
To Erich Vieth (Campaign for those who don't believe in God)
What if you don't believe in the traditional "God" in the clouds and living on a cloud but you still pray/talk (mostly at times of great strain or stress) to whomever/whatever somewhere who is probably not there and won't answer in any case? Does that make you a semi-atheist, a "lite" atheist, a fallen atheist, an unworthy atheist or just plain confused?
Yes, I would appreciate your take on this contradictory mind stuff.
It really concerns me at the amount of people who are responding with the same belief as you.
For people to say that they do not believe they sure do work hard to try to prove their ideas.You have christians that present them selves as better than anyone else puffed up and haughty. That is not how God would have us act. I think that that is why when any one refers to a christian they say "so called" because people have this missconception that they are supposed to be perfect and then all af their actions are picked apart. People love to say that if there was a God then he wouldnt let bad things happen . We have a choice in what we do and how we behave and then have to take the consequences for them.
God is the most faught against person in our world but we are wanted to embrace every other religion. You want people to believe the same way that you do , that is the reason that you decided to post your comments. You fight hard against it because the intimidation that you say that you have could be an inkling that he does exist.
People are so willing to believe in other religions because there is a person standing in front of them telling them about it.and they say that God is the super natural. A person can stand in front of you and lie and make you believe it .You see some religious christian programs on T.V. and all some of them can do is beg for money and say that if you are or become a christian that you will be very prosperous, that is not the case sither. God is not all about wealth and gain , he is about love , compassion , helpfullness and kindness toward your fellow man.
I find it interesting that while our morals continue to tumble downward into the depths, you claim to be more pure morally because of your rejection of God. Where are your morals based? Did you learn morality from a gum wrapper? Where do we get our morals? I'd say the rules we live by in how we treat one another for instance "the golden rule" comes from the word of God. People from a lack of understanding say Christians only love their fellow man because of fear of eternal damnation. The fact is only God can turn the hearts of men. We are all evil and unworthy of God's unconditional love. This planet we inhabit was to be a perfect paradise until the influence of evil and the knowledge thereof and it shows itself everyday. Murder, rape, lies, homosexuality, pride, self centeredness are a part of our everyday lives and you could be a victim. We wake up everyday in a defensive stance gaurding our families against the intrusion of these things into our lives. These things are evil and from where do they come? Are some people just bad? How do you explain murderers who find this non existant God and become loving servants of their fellow man? I noticed some time ago that Atheism starts with Mr or Mrs Super intelligent who's God like pride won't let them accept that there is a creator. You said that people want to live their lives how they want without worrying about the consequences or punishments handed down by the almighty. Ridiculous!!!! It seems to me your selfish wants and pursuits is your reason for not believing. I had a friend recently who I've known for years come back into my life. Last I saw him he was a conservative Christian, had a girlfriend and basically led a normal life. Now he is an alcoholic, drug addict out of the closet homosexual who has become a liberal atheist. He has tremendous guilt which is not from God by the way and it feeds his desire to drink and do his drugs and fall further away. He gave in to a temptation and now it is destroying him. That is how evil works. Lies, deceit, temptation, all the while saying it's okay and it will make you more fulfilled and satisfied and more morally pure. Our nation was founded by Christian men on Christian principals. We desperately need these principals for our continued survival. Atheist like yourself, probably quite intelligent, forget that not everyone can govern themselves. The more you remove God and his principals of governing ourselves the more the Human government or idiocracy will move in to assume that role. Be an atheist and narrow minded but keep it to yourself. You'll likely find that impossible since you really do serve a Christ. The anti – one.
MOSI pretty much sums it all up . Well said.
I know how you must feel, having someone say they believe in a God of love and then turn around and hurt you so. I used to be a catholic, went to daily mass all my life and then went out and partied till dawn. All I had to do was go to confession and whamo, it was all forgiven, so I went out that night and did it again. I wanted to love God, but the priests made it clear that only they would enter heaven along with a few nuns. I would never. I did not give up on God, I gave up on man and religion. Now I am the happiest I have ever been in my life. God is love and God is spirit. God would never hurt one of his beloved children. All we have to do is confess out need of a saviour, be willing to turn from the sin that holds us bound and brings all kinds of pains, fears and disappointments, and we will have a new life. If we accept that Jesus is the son of God, we read this in the bible, and believe he died in our place, so we did not have to go to hell. Then our lives will change. I know this is a hard thing to do and I fully understand how you feel, faith, is hard, but God promised that all we need is a mustard seed size faith and he will do the rest. God bless you all, I hope you find the road to freedom/ ITs worth a try.
angi
Ryan: No, I didn't learn morality from a gum wrapper. Feel free to explore this website for my understanding of the bases for morality. For a beginning, check out this post: http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=792 and follow some of the links. Also, check out this post: http://dangerousintersection.org/?p=1445
I suspect you won't like these posts. You asked, though, and this is my response.
BTW, Just because you don't learn your version of morality from a traditional "God" doesn't mean that you are forced to learn it from a gum wrapper. If you disagree with me, try to explain your position to all of those godless yet highly moral Scandinavians.
Life is too short to bury oneself in semantics like believing there is no god or not believing there is a god. As long as there are radical fundamentalists bent on killing me if I don't convert to their religion, I will publicly acknowledge only that I am a lapsed Catholic. I am married to an ex-communicated Catholic who does not pressure me to return to the faith, but we live in a small community in which we are both shunned socially. I have no trouble admitting that I am an iconoclastic rebel who always questioned everything, though I am well aware that those of us who do not subscribe to any organized religion are a very tiny minority in America. I avoid any public discussion of religion to preempt the inevitable sermon that only serves to make me more determined to resist whatever dogma it supports.
To most of you who have responded –
What do you do with the people who have met the Savior personally? They do exist. Simply accepting the general Christian teaching that the Lord no longer interacts with mankind is to do yourself a disservice.
For those of you who present yourself as scientifically oriented may find "Suddenly Psychic: A Skeptics Journey" by Maureen Caudill a good read. She was like most of you here; sure that when you die you die. Although she is not one of those who have met the Savior, the journey she describes is quite engaging. Her referencing of and explanations of such topics as string theory and its relevance is good reading.
About the experience with the philosophy professor – you were treading on family tradition and emotional grounding. That's more than enough to get anyone, believer or non-believer, upset.
Most of the replys are from atheists who are sick of being looked down upon by the religous, but my experience has been the exact opposite. I have suffered ridicule by atheists because they see my catholic views as unmodern, ignorent or uneducated. Am I the only one here? It's not like I go around "spreading the word" to everybody, but if I even make a reference to anything "religious", it seems that there are people waiting to attack. Do atheists really need a movement or support group in this day and age?
There is a philosophy, though I prefer to call it a theory, called Transpersonalism. To break it down very basically, it says "something is going on we often refer to as spiritual." It says, "don't throw out the baby with the bath water." By looking at spiritual practices like meditation, by agreeing that every religion has something moral and good we can accept, by looking toward scientific investigation of these things, we can learn and grow. Now, I can buy that. There are things we just don't know.
It is when people start telling me they (and it seems only they) have the truth, the Word of God, that I start heading for the door as fast as I can. People like that can kill you! People like that have fought wars, burned others for heresy, being witches, having another religion. I hope, in the 21st century, the human race might begin to move beyond superstition. Fear and superstition are virtually synonymous. Mystery, on the other hand, is one of the things that makes life worth living. I'm not sure about one pronouncing him/herself an atheist either. It sounds just as intransigent and unforgiving as someone saying they are a believer. However, I accept anyone's belief as long as that person doesn't try to impose it on me and therein, my friend, is the rub.
I feel a little ambivalent about your personal anecdote Erich. Now, clearly this father overreacted, demonstrated a total intolerance and surprising ignorance giving his background. But in some regards, refusing to go to church with the family may have felt like a disgrace to the man in more ways than one. I don't see any problem with an atheist tagging along with his girlfriend's family to church as a sign of respect for the family and its regular family habits. Maybe the father felt insulted not just because of your disbelief in God, but also because you turned down an attempt on his part to reach out to you and treat you like a member of the family. Maybe.
But I suppose it worked out for the best. If you had tagged along, let's say, and things went well with this girlfriend, say you eventually married or had children with her. No doubt her father would demand that you raise your children in the church. It would have caused an even bigger rift if you had refused then. Sometimes even a back-bendingly considerate athiest will still enrage stubborn theists no matter how they try to avoid it.
Now on to the rest of the post: atheism has a very negative connotation to it, hence the formation of "The Brights" and atheists that misleadingly call themselves agnostics. I don't like retreating to a euphemism. I feel like we need to "take back" the A-word, like young blacks have refused to cower in fear of the word nigger*. And anyway, when a well-meaning nonbeliever tries to use and explain a term like "Bright", many people have a hard time understanding what exactly they mean. People could easily make the mistake that "Brights" follow some kind of new-age religion, if the Bright doesn't explain it well enough.
* I DO NOT intend to suggest that the minimal discrimination of atheists parallels or approximates in ANY WAY the prejudice and discrimination exacted against blacks. I just think we should find inspiration in the way that some young blacks have turned a negative connotation around.
The word Atheist means one who does not belong to or adhere to a religious belief or believe in gods, devils and demons. Atheists understand that the Bible and other alleged holy books are just stories. But what an atheist is as a human being is simply the same as everyone else minus the imaginary friends. All the negative connotations about atheists comes from the Christian apologists and not a part of the actual way that real human beings, atheists, really are.
The term "atheist" was turned into a pejorative just like the term "liberal" was by the very same church people who created their version of a liberal which does not actually exist any more than the pejorative atheist does. Atheism does not cause changes in your humanity, just removes the imaginary friends. Actual, real live liberals, as a rule, are much more moral than Church people are because they are humanists mostly or out right non-fundamentalist Christians but by turning the word liberal into the repository of all evil, which is easy to do, they were able to put in power the most corrupt people on the planet.
So is it important to regain the true meaning of atheist, a person who does not belong to an organized church or have imaginary friends but who is most likely raised in the same culture with the same moral fiber, built in by nature and honed by the civilizing influence of our greater society out there? Nobody on the planet matches up to the liberal label, either. It is a straw man argument device used by Karl Rove and the Republican party that does not exist at all. No atheist on the planet actually matches up to what the Church people claim atheists are, either. Not a one. Yet millions of us are out there hiding from what is a far nobler and fulfilling way of life, a reality centered life free of imaginary friends.
The other Church maligned aspect of the real world is the study of that world. Science is a thing to be proud of and should be read and understood by all citizens but the mere thought of all those science literate people slowly showing up on the scene living lives much better than the church can offer because they are more reality centered than the church people also has most of the scientists out there getting demonized as well. That is because science keeps pulling out the real causes of human problems like disease caused by germs instead of demons. One of the core principles of the Church is that people are born as sinners and have original sin. Not all churches but most of them believe this. They think that human beings are immoral not just by choice but by birth. The problem with the original sin argument is that it does not match up to what studies of humans says about humans. The studies for the causes of crime have shown that lead poisoning causes damage to humans that causes criminal behaviors. It is not the only cause of brain damage to criminals but it is one of the most measured. The drop in crime over the past fifty years has come from cleaning up the lead in the environment. As the lead levels drop the creation of people with the criminal mind brain damage stops and the crime rates go way down so the cause of criminal behavior is brain damage and the vast majority of people with lead poisoning or pre frontal lobe damage to the brain are crime free. Every country that has no lead in the environment or countries where the lead was removed have had very steady drops in crime rates. The countries, like those in Africa and in the Mideast that are filled with toxic chemical dumps are still having high and even rising crime rates. The connection between brain damage and chemical damage to brains is way too strong to ignore and most of the governments out there have removed the lead from their cities and societies and getting the benefit of the lowest crime rates in history and that is in all countries out there with or without death penalties. Harsher laws no more stop crime than prayer does.
Enforced seat belt laws also have caused a huge drop in pre frontal lobe damage and other brain damage caused by hitting the windshield or dashboard with their heads. So according to Christian notions, as more and more people get educated and leave religion behind their original sin is supposed to kick in. The Church has been losing 1.3% of its people for the past fifty years. The crime rate is not even remotely tied to the notion of original sin since the crime rates are plunging the less informed could make the assertion that leaving the church is the cause of the drop in crime. But humans are not simplistic beings and should be insulted by the notion of original sin. We get our socialization from apes and apes are, generally, automatically moral. Studies have shown apes squealing on and helping beat up other apes for stealing fruit and other delicacies from the troop. Our morality is automatic and honed by our culture both. Remove brain damaging chemicals like lead and you remove the causes of criminal brains. Original sin is an insult to most of us humans with normal developed brains and normal socialization. We learn our behaviors from our over all culture, which includes our home life and schools. But we don't do crime easily unless we got a damaged brain and a culture that pushes criminal behavior over normal behavior. Even in the worst cultures, there are a very high percentage, over 70%, who escape that bad culture and move on into the larger culture and become productive citizens but minus the lead poisoning, most of the people in the world are not criminals and behave in very civilized ways. The more education they get the more civilized they become, too.
This goes totally against what every single religion believes to be true but the turning atheist by Americans has produced over 40 million secular humans with high moral fiber without the Church. You can call yourself whatever you want to call yourself but 'ancient wisdom' cannot be applied to a modern, dynamic and ever more complex world. Churches have simplistic answers that any fool can memorize but the instant they try to implement those ancient ideas in the real world fails. The secular American is the cause of progress and the church people are not even remotely on the same page yet alone as effective a life tool as being science oriented with a secular viewpoint.
The vast majority of liberal arts stuff is totally flawed. We don't have a subconscious mind like Freud and others have said and the support for a soul in the human mind/brain dualism is totally gone because of modern research into how the brain works says we only have one mind and the brain supports that with using most of the brain's architecture. The new age notion that you only use ten percent of your brain and mind is totally flawed and shown to be a lie.
But, our human side has the ability to enjoy and do art for the sake of art itself. You don't need imaginary friends to be a great artist. Science fiction writers do the best literature out there and the vast majority of them are fully secular as well. The same goes for most scientists and for most secular people as well. Verbal art is about creating imaginary friends and being secular has no bearing on the creative side at all. I created the Ziptron Omega, the ultimate computer, the one the others call God to illustrate that point. The ZO is the ultimate computer and our universe is a multidimensional subroutine in the ZO's main program. Most atheists are erudite, well educated and some of the best humans on the planet. You and I are no exception. The religions get in the way of people interacting with each other and should be abandoned for that reason alone.
There is nothing wrong with coming out as an atheist and every one that does come out does show that our numbers have pretty much been growing at the same pace as the public gets better educated.
"I agree that Erich had a really crappy experience when he was younger. I agree that that shouldn’t have happened, but I think he should seriously stop whining about it and open his eyes."
We keep telling Erich this but he just doesn't seem to get it. He just needs to be quiet and accept the ten commandments as God's written word (not to mention the pseudo-virgin mary). The bible is a factual account of history. Only the names and the word meanings have been changed, everything else is perfect.
I also wish He would stop sharing his personal experiences, they are all SO one-sided.
Erich, the term atheist actually means a person that thinks that gods do not exist. a = no, none and theo = god. The other term is spiritual that there may or may not be a god, but there is a force or something that is going on. Finally there is religious which one can say is adherence or observation of a set of principles.
Just for those out there may be wondering Christians tend to become religious out of ignorance, since it is easier to follow rules than to think for themselves
Jesus was spiritual as he believed in God. Yet he often went for what was morally good instead of going for what was the religious norm of "The Church". And like many of you that were hurt by this "Church", Jesus was considered by "The Church" at the time as evil and was shunned by most of those “religious people” of that time. He was even vilified by those “Church people”.
Erick, Don and others, you have more in common with Jesus, Buddha, Confucius and other “religious people” than you think. Actually they were spiritual.